Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 75
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #41  
    I meant from CPAC, Bujin, but thanks for the standard links. Barye seems to be ignoring me, anyways....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #42  
    Republican party to CPAC:



  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    As you probably know, he just died, so I should say something briefly about him.

    When I met Zinn it was before I knew who he was. I learned later that he was the author of a well respected book called the People's History of America.

    Zinn was an influential intellectual influence on the left. After the screening of the new documentary: "The Most Dangerous Man in America" that I wrote about last week, Daniel Ellsberg spoke about how important an influence Zinn had been on him.


    a strawEastwood rebuttal ...
    I don't see anything about that as a strawman argument. Those are the facts, really. At any rate, Zinn may have been a nice, pleasant man, but he was a historical revisionist.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Take healthcare. I think its clear given the 2008 election that a great many independent minded voters were for the idea of over-hauling healthcare, but because the extremes dominate politics the Democrats took the election of Barack Obama and their increased majority in Congress to mean that they could push through an expensive over-reaching plan and the right naturally responded with the an extreme laze-faire economic response. That's all well and good if some movement happens between the two sides and a decent bill results but when neither side wants to give in and instead prefers to rant and rave about the other side being power-hungry or heartless it becomes extremely difficult to make any progress.
    well actually, that's factually inaccurate. the dems controlled the presidency, the house, and had a super-majority in the senate. this essentially means the dems in their first year (until ted kennedy died) could have passed anything, anything, they wanted. they decided to wait on health reform, and passed other bills (economic related, etc). now by the time they started debating health reform old ted had died, and oh no a Repub took his seat. well there goes the super majority in the senate.

    now if health care reform was soo important, the dems could have done it right away & NOTHING could have stopped them, including the republicans. it was in fact the DEMS themselves who stopped healthcare (so called blue dogs, more conservative dems) who put the brakes on healthcare reform. all those ear-marks (that deal in nebraska where the feds picked up the tab on all medicaid or whatever) were all given to democratic senators to buy their votes!

    so in short it was the dems, not repubs, who stopped health reform.

    anyway i did enjoy the humor in ur post, esp the last lines.
  5. #45  
    Glenn Beck is a TV evangelist? Since when?

    Ron Paul's popularity with young voters: legalization of marijuana
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by streetskooler View Post
    well actually, that's factually inaccurate. the dems controlled the presidency, the house, and had a super-majority in the senate. this essentially means the dems in their first year (until ted kennedy died) could have passed anything, anything, they wanted. they decided to wait on health reform, and passed other bills (economic related, etc). now by the time they started debating health reform old ted had died, and oh no a Repub took his seat. well there goes the super majority in the senate.

    now if health care reform was soo important, the dems could have done it right away & NOTHING could have stopped them, including the republicans. it was in fact the DEMS themselves who stopped healthcare (so called blue dogs, more conservative dems) who put the brakes on healthcare reform. all those ear-marks (that deal in nebraska where the feds picked up the tab on all medicaid or whatever) were all given to democratic senators to buy their votes!

    so in short it was the dems, not repubs, who stopped health reform.

    anyway i did enjoy the humor in ur post, esp the last lines.
    lol... what an argument. I guess you expected them to magically create health care reform out of thin air... lol... it took time.

    But we will have healthcare... it is coming, in one form or another. Republicans did not stop anything...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. #47  
    I'd have to say, I was a bit disappointed in cpac this year.

    They hyped it up as "conservative" but not republican. Not sure if anyone else picked up on that rhetoric. And yes, it was rhetoric.

    The first two speakers (presenters?) started off by attacking obama.

    I was like, crap, what was the use of that? As they say, the cpac peeps were looking for red meat... here comes the x vp.

    For people like me who like conservative ideals and liberal ideals, listening to the republicans is very difficult. Seems not much substance but a lot of hooting and hollering.

    Seems like more of the same stuff Bush brought with him in office but it won't go away.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't see anything about that as a strawman argument. Those are the facts, really. At any rate, Zinn may have been a nice, pleasant man, but he was a historical revisionist.
    I'll have to say that my experiences in reading Zinn are not "revisionist" but rather putting historical perspective in a less jingoist view. Yes, he's intentionally provocative for this purpose in his writings, much like Chomsky.

    Our species will miss Zinn, whether we realize it or not.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I'd have to say, I was a bit disappointed in cpac this year.

    They hyped it up as "conservative" but not republican. Not sure if anyone else picked up on that rhetoric. And yes, it was rhetoric.

    The first two speakers (presenters?) started off by attacking obama.

    I was like, crap, what was the use of that? As they say, the cpac peeps were looking for red meat... here comes the x vp.

    For people like me who like conservative ideals and liberal ideals, listening to the republicans is very difficult. Seems not much substance but a lot of hooting and hollering.

    Seems like more of the same stuff Bush brought with him in office but it won't go away.
    That's why young people like Ron Paul, he calls out the "conservative" bs, eg. denouncing the bush(jr and sr) big gov and war policies.

    It is quite sad that modern Republicans stand for essentially no Republican ideals. I would understand wanting to be distanced from the term and aiming for being conservative, but praising bush, chaney, and romney is a terrible way to chant conservatism (as their policies are clearly not conservative).

    -I don't even want to start on glenn beck. Sure every now and then he says something factual and relevant, but he is so over dramatic, every time I see him speak he is like "omg you just can't miss what I'm about to tell you, it will change your world." And then he will eventually roll to a stupid tape of say obama supporting acorn --or something else that is either obvious or unsurprising. And he attacks socialism like it is coming to get us, does he really not know that a great deal of the US is already socialized(roads, postal service, health care for a good part,even utilities)? The US is already ingrained with it, it isn't going away in the foreseeable future, sure Obama would like to expand it as much as possible, but he is not the first socialist in power. //end rant
  10. RPFTW's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    13 Global Posts
    #50  
    Without reading every post in this several page thread I will point out that 90+% of Ron Paul supporters hate Beck and realize that Beck is a tool of Rupert Murdoch and the RINO GOP to bring a disenfranchised group back into the folds of the 2 party system on the side of the R.

    VIDEO
    Last edited by RPFTW; 02/23/2010 at 09:40 AM. Reason: spelling
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I meant from CPAC, Bujin, but thanks for the standard links. BARYE seems to be ignoring me, anyways....
    I'm PMing you Micael to assure you I'm not ignoring anyone -- its just that I've been tied up in meetings.

    As you probably well understand, BARYE's successful infiltration and co-option of the CPAC Teabaggers has meant that his staff has been preoccupied all day adjusting rewriting and accelerating the plans for BARYE's inevitable conquest/liberation of the place humans misguidedly think of as their planet.

    With the Teabaggers in our vanguard, GOPers controlling Congress, and very possibly the White House, monkeys will soon once again be in charge.

    (I know I can trust your keeping this PM confidential ...)

    BARYE
    Last edited by BARYE; 02/23/2010 at 10:37 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by RPFTW View Post
    Without reading every post in this several page thread I will point out that 90+% of Ron Paul supporters hate Beck and realize that Beck is a took of Rupert Murdoch and the RINO GOP to bring a disenfranchised group back into the folds of the 2 party system on the side of the R.

    VIDEO
    Wow. So many concepts in there! At my advanced age, I'm afraid I may have missed some. Could you please break it down?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Ok, BARYE.... what exactly did Beck say that's dangerous? How about wrong or factually incorrect?
    OK -- I have not relistened to his hour long harangue, so everything that follows comes from BARYE's very elderly own memory...

    One of centerpieces of Beck's oration was his glorification of the roaring 20's -- and the damning of "Progressives" whom he blamed for the Great Depression.

    The gist of his argument was that the unfettered laissez faire unregulated Coolidge era brought about prosperity, and that the progressives Hoover (???!!!) and FDR made the Depression worse.

    The reality is that the twenties were a time of unregulated crooked capitalism. It was a time when speculators routinely manipulated and distorted information to entice investors into fraudulent stock scams and unregulated pump and dump swindles -- frauds that destroyed many fortunes and lives.

    It was the decade that invented the Ponzi Scheme. A decade whose arrogance and hubris lead inexorably to bank runs on failing uninsured savings & loans -- and banks, a time when farmers would routinely grow to boom and bust, from bumper crop to bankruptcy -- within the same season.

    It was time when workers were routinely fired or beaten by hired thugs for attempting to gain job protections and a decent wage, when the risk of on the job maiming and mutilation was the normal price paid for having work.

    The reality is that the Depression was the product of both an international credit collapse and rampant bubble speculations.

    Its effects were catastrophic -- and it was lessons from that experience that lead to modern regulated capitalism in which big rich and powerful bullies are made to play by rules. (regulations that junior, in his wisdom, eviscerated).

    Beck blames those early regulations for both worsening the Depression -- and for the deepening the depth of its soul crushing unemployment.

    Perhaps Professor Beck -- ignorant of the effects of the Depression's deflationary death spiral, neglects to mention it in his CPAC class lesson.

    Perhaps when Beck speaks of his golden Roaring Twenties, what he really is referring, is that is was a time when minorities had few rights, and women were rightfully denied the right to vote.

    Ignorant of his own irony, Beck the alcoholic drunk, blames those evil “Progressives” for Prohibition.

    One of Beck’s favorite “Progressives”, President Woodrow Wilson -- inconveniently just happened to veto this law. (and Prohibition -- pushed as much by religious conservatives as by “Progressives”, was ultimately repealed by the “Progressive” FDR.)

    Beck is proud that conservative Republicans defeated “Progressive” Wilson’s League of Nations treaty. The learned Beck is apparently unaware of how the resulting emasculated League of Nations contributed to the conditions that brought about the Second World War.

    Beck denounces “the first Progressive” Teddy Roosevelt, for his efforts to break up entrenched monopolies and trusts, and his attempts to provide for national health care, (and presumably for his efforts to protect the environment, and the creation and preservation of National Parks).

    That Beck is dumb enough to propose such arguments is not what scares me -- what makes me tremble beneath my sheets is that there are so many gullible ignorant americans who will absorb and process his crap as brilliant revealed truth.
    Last edited by BARYE; 02/24/2010 at 05:23 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    That Beck is dumb enough to propose such arguments is not what scares me -- what makes me tremble beneath my sheets is that there are so many gullible ignorant americans who will absorb and process his crap as brilliant revealed truth.
    Classic way to call Republicans -- and Beck supporters -- IGNORANT.

    With a smile.... I'm done for the night.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Classic way to call Republicans -- and Beck supporters -- IGNORANT.

    With a smile.... I'm done for the night.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #56  
    I think there is a general misunderstanding of how capitalism and supply and demand work.
    Capitalism does not work best as Laissez-faire. Supply and Demand economics require regulation. There are certain conditions required for supply and demand to work, and the government must act in a way to make the economic conditions as close as possible to perfect competition (eg. monopolies and oligopolies are detrimental to supply and demand economics). Furthermore, government intervention into economics is also detrimental; take for example subsidies on crops, which artificially entice an increase in supply leading to surplus and reduced market prices.

    So governments ideal position is to make the market as fair as possible enabling supply and demand to work effectively. However, most Republicans want no regulation(resulting in price fixing by corporations and other problems), and Democrats want government intervention into the market mechanics(mostly price fixing by the government).
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjab View Post
    take for example subsidies on crops, which artificially entice an increase in supply leading to surplus and reduced market prices.
    Not to take away from your argument, but subsidies seems to be one fo those areas a lot more complex than the surface might show.

    Both dems and rep have sought to end and decrease the subsidies... but both the dems and reps who come from the states who benefit from the entitlements don't want them ended or even portions reduced.

    This is a dem and rep issue... not one or the other. Actually, all sides agree that the subsidies should be reduced or even eliminated, but differ on how much or how to go about getting the job done... and then you have the rep and dems from the states who refuse to play ball on all ideas.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    OK -- I have not relistened to his hour long harangue, so everything that follows comes from BARYE's very elderly own memory...

    One of centerpieces of Beck's oration was his glorification of the roaring 20's -- and the damning of "Progressives" whom he blamed for the Great Depression.

    The gist of his argument was that the unfettered laissez faire unregulated Coolidge era brought about prosperity, and that the progressives Hoover (???!!!) and FDR made the Depression worse.

    The reality is that the twenties were a time of unregulated crooked capitalism. It was a time when speculators routinely manipulated and distorted information to entice investors into fraudulent stock scams and unregulated pump and dump swindles -- frauds that destroyed many fortunes and lives.

    It was the decade that invented the Ponzi Scheme. A decade whose arrogance and hubris lead inexorably to bank runs on failing uninsured savings & loans -- and banks, a time when farmers would routinely grow to boom and bust, from bumper crop to bankruptcy -- within the same season.

    It was time when workers were routinely fired or beaten by hired thugs for attempting to gain job protections and a decent wage, when the risk of on the job maiming and mutilation was the normal price paid for having work.

    The reality is that the Depression was the product of both an international credit collapse and rampant bubble speculations.

    Its effects were catastrophic -- and it was lessons from that experience that lead to modern regulated capitalism in which big rich and powerful bullies are made to play by rules. (regulations that junior, in his wisdom, eviscerated).

    Beck blames those early regulations for both worsening the Depression -- and for the deepening the depth of its soul crushing unemployment.

    Perhaps Professor Beck -- ignorant of the effects of the Depression's deflationary death spiral, neglects to mention it in his CPAC class lesson.

    Perhaps when Beck speaks of his golden Roaring Twenties, what he really is referring, is that is was a time when minorities had few rights, and women were rightfully denied the right to vote.

    Ignorant of his own irony, Beck the alcoholic drunk, blames those evil “Progressives” for Prohibition.

    One of Beck’s favorite “Progressives”, President Woodrow Wilson -- inconveniently just happened to veto this law. (and Prohibition -- pushed as much by religious conservatives as by “Progressives”, was ultimately repealed by the “Progressive” FDR.)

    Beck is proud that conservative Republicans defeated “Progressive” Wilson’s League of Nations treaty. The learned Beck is apparently unaware of how the resulting emasculated League of Nations contributed to the conditions that brought about the Second World War.

    Beck denounces “the first Progressive” Teddy Roosevelt, for his efforts to break up entrenched monopolies and trusts, and his attempts to provide for national health care, (and presumably for his efforts to protect the environment, and the creation and preservation of National Parks).

    That Beck is dumb enough to propose such arguments is not what scares me -- what makes me tremble beneath my sheets is that there are so many gullible ignorant americans who will absorb and process his crap as brilliant revealed truth.
    Dear Bayre,

    I appreciate you taking the time to respond. But please, you're all over the board here; ponzi schemes? women and minorities rights? unregulated crooked capitalism? He was talking about economics. Here's a nice recap I found online of that particular portion of his speech:

    Glenn then warns of the coming Economic Holocaust. The worst is far from over and warning bells are sounding. Beck returns to the blackboard and writes out numbers from the 1920 Depression. Caused by policies of the Wilson Administration, conditions were far worse that year than now, even worse than the first year of the Great Depression. But, it was short lived, thanks to Calvin Coolidge. Taxes were lowered from a top rate of 77% to 25%. Federal spending was slashed in half! By 1923, the economy was booming. The Roaring 20s saw an expanded middle class. Hoover, a Progressive, made the Crash of ‘29 worse with excessive spending, setting the stage for FDR to take advantage of an emergency."

    How is that incorrect?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #59  
    social security puts wall street ponzi schemes to shame(it's a bigger ponzi scheme than all of them put together). Crooked capitalism can't hold a candle to irresponsible government.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjab View Post
    social security puts wall street ponzi schemes to shame(it's a bigger ponzi scheme than all of them put together). Crooked capitalism can't hold a candle to irresponsible government.
    Do elaborate.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions